State should review its obligations to those wrongly convicted

Published 6:00 pm, Monday, January 22, 2001

That's the maximum compensation allowed under current state law for those who have been wrongly convicted.

But when compared with the story of A.B. Butler, it seems woefully inadequate.

Butler spent 16 years in prison for the 1983 rape and kidnapping of a 25-year-old woman. He had been sentenced to two consecutive 99-year prison terms, all the while maintaining his innocence.

He would have stayed there but for DNA evidence that finally exonerated him last year. He was pardoned by Gov. George W. Bush.

Simply put, Butler lost 16 years of his life. Instead of pursuing a career, maybe building a family, Butler spent his days shuffling down the cold, hard corridors of Texas prison, wondering how he had ended up in this nightmare.

His isn't the only such example. It was DNA evidence that likewise freed Roy Wayne Criner, the 36-year-old New Caney man released from state prison last year after genetic evidence cleared him of a 10-year-old rape conviction.

And just last week, a district judge ordered the release of Christopher Ochoa, who had been in prison 12 years for a 1988 murder that he didn't commit. Although he initially had confessed to the crime, perhaps due to fear of the police, another man, in prison on another charge, eventually confessed, and led authorities to evidence that clearly showed he was the culprit — not Ochoa.

What do you do with a man who's spent a decade or more in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

Certainly, $50,000 seems nowhere near adequate. State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, has said he hopes to introduce a bill that would increase the compensation for those wrongly convicted.

The Legislature should look at this issue and debate whether it's meeting its moral obligation to the men who are imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit.

And yet balance is needed as well. While $50,000 may seem inadequate, millions could be overkill. Butler is suing for $37.5 million. If authorities acted in good faith, which it appears they may have in his case, such a huge judgment would be its own form of injustice.

Fortunately, these kinds of cases should be fewer and farther between, thanks to the increasing use of DNA evidence. But putting a higher price tag on mistakes such as in the case of Butler might encourage even greater vigilance to ensure that only the guilty are punished.